Friday, March 14, 2008

After 50 years…I bet the Red Dye No. 2 pollutant from the ‘58 Mickey Mantle attached to Bob Costas’ droopy ass has worked it’s way up to his amyloadosis-filled brain.

‘‘I understand with newspapers struggling and hoping to hold on to, or possibly expand their audiences, I understand why they do what they do,’’ Costas said. ‘But it’s one thing if somebody just sets up a blog from their mother’s basement in Albuquerque and they are who they are, and they’re a pathetic get-a-life loser, but now that pathetic get-a-life loser can piggyback onto someone who actually has some level of professional accountability and they can be comment No. 17 on Dan Le Batard’s column or Bernie Miklasz’ column in St. Louis. That, in most cases, grants a forum to somebody who has no particular insight or responsibility. Most of it is a combination of ignorance or invective.’‘

What bothers Costas—and he’s not alone—is Internet and talk radio commentary that ``confuses simple mean-spiritedness and stupidity with edginess. Just because I can call someone a name doesn’t mean I’m insightful or tough and edgy. It means I’m an idiot.

``It’s just a high-tech place for idiots to do what they used to do on bar stools or in school yards, if they were school yard bullies, or on men’s room walls in gas stations. That doesn’t mean that anyone with half a brain should respect it.’‘

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

My identity is two clicks away from this screen, but I use a screen name because I don't like the idea of having a more-than-temporary record of every stupid thing I post here attached to my name.

I don't consider anyone "anonymous" who posts here on a regular basis, and especially anyone who has some sort of a personal web link. We all pretty much know who we are.

I understand the valid reasons for anonymity, and on this site in particular it hasn't seemed to pose any real problem. In part I think we can thank the Furtado deterrent effect for that, at least in establishing boundaries. But if you've got a widely visited general forum without a good "editor", all you're going to get with anonymity for the most part is a lot of anonymous drivel and namecalling.

When I started posting here, I used the name Vic Davalillo, partly because I was still working at the Hall of Fame and partly because he was one of my favorite players. Some people thought I was actually the former major leaguer. After awhile, the novelty wore off and I guess I just wanted to attach my real name to the opinions I offered.

Sounds simple, but that's my reason as well. And I started on usenet, and it didn't seem like there were as many anonymous posters there; I was surprised at the large percentage of anonymous posters when I started reading this site.

By the way, what's the story with Roger Maynard?

He's basically the longest-running troll that many of us have ever encountered. He's been at it for well over a decade; he was already in full swing when I first started posting on rec.sport.baseball around 1993. And it's not just a post here and there; he's posted with huge volume.

His constant refrain is that "statgeeks" ruin the beauty of "sport." He asserts that theme in virtually every post he makes, bogging down discussion after discussion and basically polluting the newsgroup. (As far as I know, he's still at it, though rec.sport.baseball is basically dead now.) He made a nuisance of himself, to the Nth degree. He'd also switch handles frequently in order to throw off the killfiles.

Over and over again, people (mainly newbies) tried to engage him on a good faith basis and have a rational discussion with him (which of course only ended up thickening the pollution). I remember trying once, and then never again; there's no reasoning with a loon.

If I'm not mistaken, Dan's posted his real name and place of residence, as well as the fact that he's a convicted felon.

Interesting points about anonymity. I only adopted a handle because it seemed, when I first joined here, that having a handle was the thing to do. My real name is Chad Johnson, a name so indescribably boring, I think I'll just stick with Shooty. Also, googling my name is impossible thanks to Chad Johnson the football player. Freakin glory hog.

If you write about sports and sports-related topics for a living, it can be nice to have a persona of a fan on sites like this.
You can offer comments that aren't necessarily your own, not to incite trolls but to provoke discussion.
If it's with your "real public figure" name attached to it, posters think it must be exactly your sentiment, instead of a way to move a discussion forward. And that would be inaccurate.

Howie, I'm not seeing the utility in offering opinions that aren't one's own. It seems to violate the social contract here where we all assume people are making comments in good faith unless we have a reason to believe otherwise.

What's wrong with saying: "This isn't my view, but many people think X." Or "I'm not necessarily convinced of this, but X would be a reason." ?

It's more something that seems plausible on paper, but it hasn't been vetted yet.

Not sure that the more hypothetical versions you're seeking are needed, if the persona is not the person. I don't think it's 'not in good faith.' It's just that the disclaimers you mention are exactly what has to clog up the mill if one posts with that real and recognized name.

Plus feedback might be inhibited or altered if the real name is attached.

The Neyer responses overall here I think are good for both sides. But probably others don't chime in once they realize it's "the real guy," either.

So what does anonymity mean to me? Like bunyon, I don't particularly want anyone googling my name to come up with my posts here. It's not what I do for a living, and it would just confuse the picture. (Odd exercise: I tried googling "OCF", just like that with nothing else. I got Orthodox Christian Fellowship and Obsessive Compulsive Foundation and Open Container Format and Objibway Correctional Facility but not, in the first 20 Google pages, anything at all having to do with me.) At first, I guarded my anonymity, but eventually I relaxed, so my identity is a semi-open secret that some know and others could find out if they tried.

But even in anonymity, I never wanted to engage in personal attacks, to use intemperate language, or to argue for the sake of arguing. It's not polite and it's not who I am. Even under a pseudonym, that part of my identity isn't going to change. And of course, by now, the handle itself had an identity and repuation for me to protect. Funny how that works.

And it would be hard to deny that Lupica was a gold standard 15-20 years ago. How long he's held up to that, you'll find many opinions.

Well, I typically get one of the New York papers on my way in to work in the morning, so I've read a fair amount of Lupica's work in recent years. I can't speak to his work from 20 years ago, but certainly his writing now is like a parody of what you describe it used to be. He's preachy, intolerant, moralistic, and overly judgmental. I've also encountered a fair amount of intellectual dishonesty in his writing. I can believe he's a nice guy in person, although Jason Whitlock certainly doesn't seem to think so.

Q: In one of your most memorable appearances on The Sports Reporters, you got into a tiff with Mike Lupica and Mitch Albom when you said sports was just ‘entertainment.’ Lupica told you to go work on ‘Entertainment Tonight.’ You haven’t appeared with either of them since. Have the three of you kissed and made up?

A: I don't have a problem with Mitch Albom. Lupica is an insecure, mean-spirited busybody. He's upset because I put a clown suit on him on that show and in a follow-up column I wrote for ESPN. His little disingenuous overreaction to an opinion I'd stated previously on the show was staged to try to put me in a bad light. I guess no one had ever informed Mike that the E in ESPN stood for Entertainment. The Little Fella probably won't let the producer (Joe Valerio) have me back on the show again. That's cool. They're mostly upset that I wouldn't participate in their Barry Bonds witch hunt and help them single Bonds out as the creator of steroids. Lupica doesn't like to be disagreed with, and he's spoken so abusively to that producer for years that the producer probably doesn't realize people are allowed to disagree with Lupica. I enjoyed my time on the show. But if the price of admission is stepping to Lupica's drum, I'm more than happy to go without.

Q: Do you regret giving us the interview that caused your split with ESPN?

A: Not at all. I am what I am. I’ve been outspoken since childhood. I can’t help it. My outspoken nature has helped me as a columnist and served me well in my relationships with friends and family.

Q: How much do you miss guest-hosting on PTI and Rome is Burning? Sparring with Albom and your boy Lupica on Sports Reporters? Do you think the lack of ESPN presence has cost you juice?

A: Whatever amount of ‘juice’ I have comes from the originality and honesty of the opinions I state. If a media outlet compromises my ability to be honest, then it’s likely we’re going to run into difficulty. The people running The Sports Reporters (Mike Lupica and Joe Valerio) made it very clear that they didn’t want to hear my opinions about steroids and Barry Bonds. They want a united voice that Barry Bonds is the worst thing to happen to sports. I disagreed. They have the right to recruit other minorities to state their opinion about Barry Bonds, and they’ve done that.

Lupica has a horrid reputation within the industry. It's common knowledge that he led to the departures of Mark Krygiel and Lisa Olson from the Daily News, largely because of his ego and own insecurities. Then there's Whitlock's take. The way he comes across on The Sports Reporters, from everything I've been able to gather, captures him to a tee.

When I started posting here I used my real name mostly because I couldn't be bothered to think of a fake one. I sometimes worry that since my name isn't very common people may come up with this site and the stupid, ungracious, things I sometimes say. But then I realize that that's just paranoia. If you google my name the first fifteen hits or so are all me and none of them are for things I've said here.

My real name has 5 links on google, of which 2 are from MySpace involving people I have never met, 1 is from a geneology board about someone with my name in Charlotte. Of the other two, one actually shows me saying my real name using this username.

I found out that there is a MySpace profile that uses my name. It belongs to a 15 year old girl in Arizona. I can just see the child molestation comments coming....

I started using Repoz when at the beginning of Primer there were 2-3 other Darren's floating around (I think for a while it was Darren-1, darren-2 or some such)...so I just switched back to Repoz (it was originally a trib. to double R) that I had been using at CBS Live.

When I started reading rec.sport.baseball about 15 years ago, almost everybody used their real name, so when I started posting, so did I. I never felt a need to do anything differently. By this point, the idea of presenting my arguments under anything but "Dan Szymborski" just seems bizarre.

But are you saying it's not true that Lupica caused trouble for him because he expressed a different opinion on the Bonds issue?

I'm saying that Jason is an amazing prima donna in his own right who is fully capable of getting himself censured and/or fired on his own and might even be capable of misrepresenting his history when it suits his interests.

Also, how much is the need for anonymous posting based on the need to hide their identity during times they're at work--and presumably doing something other than being on the internet? Is that a big motivational factor in hiding identity?

That's practically 100% for me. I don't want a present or future employer googling me and finding a thread where I made an off-color comment, which out of context, makes me look unprofessional, or a post made at 3:13 on a Wednesday.

And off-color could be language, it could be political, it could be related to drugs, or gambling, or religion. I have strong opinions that I don't want to be easily accessible. It's bad enough that when I posted on newsgroups like alt.atheism or a sports group in what I'll call my "teenage internet" years, where my interpersonal skills where a bit lacking and that's searchable, but at least I have the benefit of it being from around 15 years ago.

I used to frequent Elitist Jerks, which is a forum about a computer game that I no longer play (parenthood put a stop to it). It is one of the two or three best internet discussion boards I've ever seen. User management at the site is similar to the BTF model in some ways--posters are anonymous (or pseudonymous at least) but registration is required--but it is moderated far more actively and less tolerantly than BTF. There are comments here on a weekly, if not daily, basis that would result in a public repudiation or temporary to permanent ban at EJ. Having such exacting standards is only as effective as the moderators who apply them, of course, but EJ has very good moderators. By and large, I think their efforts result in a level of discourse that has few peers.

I don't think that sort of moderation could be implemented at BTF at this point. Too many people would probably chafe and see it as overly draconian, and too few people would want the responsibility. When I read and posted at EJ, though, I will say that I read more/posted less and I generally put more effort into my comments. You have to be on top of your game there and you'd damn well better have data to back up your statements, or you'll get a peepee slap in a hurry.

Anyway, I bring this up as a reference point for people who think BTF's registration system is onerous. Compared to my other favorite discussion boards, it's perfectly normal. And I find the moderation at BTF to be quite relaxed relative to those other sites, possibly to a fault. For example, the IP that posted #101 in this thread would be enjoying, at minimum, a short vacation from a couple other places I visit.

Anyway, I bring this up as a reference point for people who think BTF's registration system is onerous. Compared to my other favorite discussion boards, it's perfectly normal. And I find the moderation at BTF to be quite relaxed relative to those other sites, possibly to a fault. For example, the IP that posted #101 in this thread would be enjoying, at minimum, a short vacation from a couple other places I visit.

And I think most of us are glad that "Kevin's Innermost Thoughts" doesn't get shot down, even if that "Translation Matrix" is pretty much a one trick pony. OTOH if you had more than one person performing that particular schtick, a thread could deteriorate very quickly. The fine balance between civility and spontaneity seems easy when everyone more or less plays by the same rules, but without the deterrent effect of the Furtado Bureau of Investigation lurking in the background I'm not sure it's a given that this sort of balance would remain.

I'm saying that Jason is an amazing prima donna in his own right who is fully capable of getting himself censured and/or fired on his own and might even be capable of misrepresenting his history when it suits his interests.

Ok, just as long as it's clear that you don't have any special knowledge about this particular incident.

me:
a geology professor in the midwest (probable relative);
a 90 year old priest living in San Fran (distant relative);
a parking garage manager in England (probable relative); and
a lottery winner in Ireland (probable relative)

that's about it

When I first Googled my own name a few years ago all that came up was the geologist (then a grad student)...

And I think most of us are glad that "Kevin's Innermost Thoughts" doesn't get shot down, even if that "Translation Matrix" is pretty much a one trick pony.

I was quite fond of the old Artie Ziff myself, the new one just doesn't have the same panache, the breathtaking ability to simply and matter of factly, innocently (without apparent self-awareness?) make an assertion or implied assumption that was 180 degrees off the stathead consensus...

I'd rather not future employers, my wife, my children, or whomever see that I have 3999 comments on this site, (this must be #4000, consider yourselves lucky) mostly compiled during the normal work week. I have seen too many internet fights cross over into real world fights. I have built a "name" to stand behind as a poster at BTF, so I'm not anonymous as far as individual posts go, but I am anonymous for real world impact. I do like the BTF registration system as a light gatekeeper against the masses of completely crazy, racist, trollist posts that dominate some sites.

My name is unique enough the first 21 hits on google are all me...
Even though google doesn't think I spelled my name correctly and offers alternative spelling...
[edit] And shockingly, 1k5v3l is not my real name
[edit2] I was also shocked how many hits google returned. Damn, I'm almost famous